► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Bill Clinton’ Category

Guest Post: Bill Clinton back in the News again for sexual misconduct

by coldwarrior ( 148 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton, Corruption, Open thread at January 6th, 2015 - 1:09 pm

From Dorian’s The Wilderness of Mirrors:

Serial rapist Bill Clinton back in the News again for sexual misconduct.

In 1998 Bill Clinton infamously used his position as the most powerful man on earth to crush criminal investigations into accusations that he was a serial rapist. Those accusations dated all the way back to the 1970’s when he was Governor of Arkansas. Will Bill Clinton ever be held accountable? Not bloody likely. But now with the recent revelations regarding Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton’s close association and frequent visits to sexual slavery paradise being brought to light, perhaps people will start to rethink exactly who and what Bill Clinton really is.

Bill Clinton Is an Alleged Rapist, Too. Why Aren’t You Outraged About That?

Yes, that’s the one. Remember him? Bill Clinton. Former President of the United States, possibly future First Husband of the United States? Ring a bell? You know the guy — the one who remains a beloved figure in American liberalism? An elder statesman of the Democrat Party? The dude who shows up to fundraise for Democratic congressional candidates? The man who continues to enjoy enormous popularity even after his presidency? Yeah, that guy. He was President. The actual President of the United States.

The President of the United States who was credibly accused of rape, assault, and sexual harassment by numerous women over a period of many years. Forget Monica Lewinsky. I’m talking about Juanita Broaddrick, who recounted the incident to Dateline in 1999, saying ‘[Clinton] turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him ‘no.’ . . . He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip. . . . And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him ‘no.’ . . . He wouldn’t listen to me.’

And Paula Jones, who most Americans remembers as ‘That Woman Who Had Something To Do With The Monica Lewinsky Thing Or Something,’ won an out of court settlement from Clinton after accusing him of summoning her to his hotel room one night and, right there with his security detail standing by, dropping his pants and exposing himself.

As horrifying as it sounds, from the 70′s all the way through the 90′s and possibly beyond, college students, secretaries, interns, and others, all tell stories of sexual violence at the hands (or other body parts) of Bill Clinton. The Clinton machine went to work in each case, with the active help of Hillary ‘The Champion For Women’s Rights’ Clinton, smearing, intimidating, blackmailing and bribing the accusers into silence. And you’re telling me Bill Cosby is the bigger story?

Jeffrey Epstein is a convicted serial sexual predator, and once a very close confidant of Bill Clinton. Jeffry is now being investigated for allegations that he kept under-aged girls captive and exploited them as sexual slaves. there is also documented evidence that Bill Clinton visited the very same island resort multiple times where Jeffrey Epstein was reputed to have kept these under-aged sexual slaves, and the Bill Clinton’s multiple visits took place during the period of time that Jeffrey Epstein was keeping those under-aged girls there as sexual slaves.

Given the nature of the allegations against Jeffrey Epstein, and the evidence that Bill Clinton was in fact visiting Epstein’s infamous sexual slavery paradise island any honest rational individual must ask themselves, how do Bill Clintons previous allegations of sexual misconduct look in this light?

Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had ‘regular’ orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited multiple times

A new lawsuit has revealed the extent of former President Clinton’s friendship with a fundraiser who was later jailed for having sex with an underage prostitute.

Bill Clinton’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who served time in 2008 for his illegal sexual partners, included up multiple trips to the onetime billionaire’s private island in the Caribbean where underage girls were allegedly kept as sex slaves.

The National Enquirer has released new details about the two men’s friendship, which seems to have ended abruptly around the time of Epstein’s arrest.
Naming names: A lawsuit between Jeffrey Epstein (right) and his legal team has included multiple mentions about the convicted pedophile’s connection to former President Bill Clinton (left)

Naming names: A lawsuit between Jeffrey Epstein (right, in 2011) and his legal team has included multiple mentions about the convicted pedophile’s connection to former President Bill Clinton (left, earlier this month)

Naming names: A lawsuit between Jeffrey Epstein (right, in 2011) and his legal team has included multiple mentions about the convicted pedophile’s connection to former President Bill Clinton (left, earlier this month)

Pedophile paradise: The lawsuit included flight records that showed Clinton made multiple trips to Epstein’s private island, Little St James (pictured), between 2002 and 2005. Women were reportedly kept there as sex slaves

Pedophile paradise: The lawsuit included flight records that showed Clinton made multiple trips to Epstein’s private island, Little St James (pictured), between 2002 and 2005. Women were reportedly kept there as sex slaves

Tales of orgies and young girls being shipped to the island, called Little St. James, have been revealed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between Epstein and his former lawyers Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards.

It is unclear what the basis of the suit is, but they go on to call witness testimony from some of the frequent guests at Epstein’s island to talk about the wild parties that were held there in the early 2000s.
Convicted: Epstein was investigated in 2005 after a woman reported that he paid her 14-year-old daughter for sex

Convicted: Epstein was investigated in 2005 after a woman reported that he paid her 14-year-old daughter for sex

Flight logs pinpoint Clinton’s trips on Epstein’s jet between the years 2002 and 2005, while he was working on his philanthropic post-presidential career and while his wife Hillary was a Senator for their adopted state of New York.

‘I remember asking Jeffrey what’s Bill Clinton doing here kind fo thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me a favor,’ one unidentified woman said in the lawsuit, which was filed in Palm Beach Circuit Court.

The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and she recalled two young girls from New York who were always seen around the five-house compound but their personal backstories were never revealed.

At least one woman on the compound was there unwillingly, as the suit identifies a woman as Jane Doe 102.

She ‘was forced to live as one of Epstein’s underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with… politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc,’ the lawsuit says according to The Enquirer.

Epstein’s sexual exploits have been documented since 2005, when a woman in Palm Beach contacted police saying that her 14-year-old daughter had been paid $300 to massage him and then have sex.

The claim prompted a nearly year-long investigation that led to the eventual charge of soliciting prostitution which came as part of a plea deal. He spent 13 months of a 18-month sentence in jail and remains a registered sex offender.

Hillary Clinton is convinced that it is her turn to be President of the United States of America, and there is nothing in Heaven or Earth that will dissuade her that she does not have that right. All the evidence however suggests that she is and always has been aware of Bill’s serial sexual predator status. More importantly, that she was actively involved in protecting him from the legal consequences of his actions. Does a woman who aided and abetted a serial rapist to avoid prosecution deserve to be President of the United States of America?

If you happen to be a Democrat, the answer to that question is absolutely. American Democrats have become notable in the last 40 years for their complete and total lack of anything even remotely resembling morality. They have but one single driving motivating impulse, that is, to win at any cost. The End Justifies the Means. They willfully entered into a state of public denial that Bill Clinton committed perjury and that he used his position as President of the United States to subordinate justice.

The leap from supporting a serial rapist as President of the United States to supporting someone who aided and abetted a serial rapist to avoid prosecution is actually a rather small one. It does on the other hand bring to an incredible degree of clarity just how morally bankrupt and corrupt the Democrat Party has become. A party that would literally nominate, and elect the devil himself if they though he would win and further their Marxist agenda.

No this is not an attempt to shame democrats into doing what is right, that hasn’t been possible in at least 40 years. These are just general observations on the complete lack of morality of the Clinton’s and corrupt nature of the Democrat Party as a whole.

Mars Presents: From the American Thinker “The Left’s Base Motive: Vengeance”

by Mars ( 120 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Bigotry, Bill Clinton, Blogmocracy, Communism, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Education, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hillary Clinton, Hipsters, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Media, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism, Tranzis at January 5th, 2015 - 8:00 am


This article presents a very well written analysis of something I’ve been trying to put together in my head for some time now. I’ve mentioned many times the lefts drive for vengeance in everything they do. They never grew out of the stage where they are trying to get even with everyone for some imagined slight in their past. I would go so far as to say that the difference from liberals and conservatives is that conservatives learned to “get over it” where liberals were taught they were precious little flowers and how dare they be treated that way. Anyway, for your enlightenment I am presenting this article from American Thinker. I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did. And dreads what it portends for the next two years.

January 2, 2015
The Left’s Base Motive: Vengeance
By J.R. Dunn

American leftism has gotten an awful lot of mileage by monopolizing the moral high ground. It is the sole force in American that favors the poor. The sole enemy of racism. The sole comforter of rape victims. The sole protector of defenseless Muslims. The sole guardian of the environment, and so on ad nauseum.

It all falls apart eventually — with friends like the left, nobody needs enemies. But often overlooked is that fact that it’s bogus from the start. Any prolonged glance at the left reveals it to be an ideology of power, its major tool violence, its goal revenge.

Leftism has always been about revenge. The works of Marx are filled with fantasies of retribution and judgment. Their tone reeks of resentment and paranoia, with blame cast for even the most trivial. “The bourgeoisie,” Marx once declared in a letter to Engels, “will remember my carbuncles until their dying day.” That’s leftism in a nutshell.

The Paris communards of 1870, the first instance of an actual leftist government-in-being, immediately began shooting bourgeois on taking power, giving full rein to the European hatred for the middle class that is all but incomprehensible to Americans. That practice has been repeated by every hard left government that has ever taken power — the USSR, communist China, Castroite Cuba, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, down to minor examples such as Bela Kun’s Hungarian “Regime of Light” (1919), which reintroduced the Roman practice of decimation.

This unvarying tendency toward atrocity suggests that all these regimes had something in common, and it’s not that they all suffered from boils. It’s the lust for vengeance — revenge for slights and crimes either real or imaginary, that can be found in every leftist from Nechaev to Bill Ayers. No less than Barack Obama spilled that when, his back apparently against the wall in 2012, he began ranting about “voting for revenge”.

This was displayed clearly enough this past holiday season.

First in the wave of bogus rape stories, brought up not to assure prosecution or to curtail such crimes, but solely as ideological weapons for use by feminists.

American leftism has always been about magnifying trivial complaints to serve as excuses for revolutionary action. The U.S. has never had a feudal system, nor a proletariat, nor any other conceivable reason for revolution. (German Marxist Werner Sombart pointed out in 1903 that the American masses already possessed what the left was promising them. His comrades badgered him mercilessly for this insight.) Instead we see trivia blown up to apocalyptic proportions — and nowhere less than in feminism. Betty Friedan hated the suburbs. Gloria Steinem served as a Playboy bunny and never got over the humiliation. They therefore set out to upend Western civilization by inflating these slights while millions of other women fastened on atrocities such as “the male gaze,” having doors opened for them, “manspreading,” and attempted pickups — or lack of the same.

The one actual atrocity available was rape, which feminists have utilized as heavy artillery — “all men are rapists”, “all sex is rape”, and the like. The latest barrage came from Tawana Dunham and Rolling Stone’s “Jackie.”

Dunham, the East Coast sophisticate’s 300-lb. “It” girl, claimed in a memoir that she had been raped by an infamous Republican while at college, while “Jackie” regaled Rolling Stone with a tale of gang rape at the hands of the always-reliable frat house.

Suffice to say not a single detail of either story help up. A “Barry” did attend Oberlin, and he was a power in local campus conservative politics, but he lacked a handlebar mustache and he’d never met Dunham. The fraternity in “Jackie’s” yarn threw no party the night in question, nor did she show any signs of suffering such an ordeal.

One of the grotesque aspects of this scandal is that nobody in the legacy media so much as alluded to the Brawley and Duke hoaxes, which in many ways were identical to these accounts. In the Brawley case a black teenage girl, afraid to return home after a late night out, claimed to have been raped by a gang of whites under degrading circumstances. A gullible media hooted the story to the skies, egged on by the “Rev.” Al Sharpton. In the Duke case, the entire lacrosse team was publicly indicted for the mass rape of a stripper brought in to entertain a stag party.

Both these stories began to collapse almost immediately, but proponents insisted it didn’t matter — white men had raped black women innumerable times before, so collective guilt demanded that someone be persecuted. As for Duke, lacrosse was an upper-class WASP sport, and the team deserved to be punished for that alone.

Dunham and “Jackie” would do well to contemplate the fates of the accusers in these hoaxes. Although Brawley’s champion Al Sharpton used the incident as his next step in clawing his way to the heights (if that’s the word) of MSNBC, Brawley herself today lives pseudonymously in Northern Virginia owing millions in legal fines. The Duke athlete’s accuser, Crystal Mangum, is serving hard time for the murder of a paramour.

Both Dunham and “Jackie” were looking for revenge for something — all that we know is that it wasn’t rape.

Even more serious — for the nation as a whole as well as those directly involved — is current racial unrest triggered by blatant attempts to manipulate racial tensions through the actions and rhetoric of Barack Obama and Eric Holder et al. Long-term efforts to decriminalize the actions of black lawbreakers, beginning with the Trayvon Martin incident and progressing to the Ferguson shooting, have dovetailed with several standard episodes of police incompetence in Cleveland and Staten Island to create as fraught a racial atmosphere as at any time since the late 60s. (So much for the “post-racial” president.) This culminated in the assassination of two police officers in Brooklyn by an unstable career criminal, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who had boasted on his Facebook page that he was out to avenge the Brown shooting by “giving wings to pigs.” (With the customary competence of the urban gangster, Brinsley shot not white officers but Wenjian Liu, an Asian, and Rafeal Ramos, a Hispanic.)

Here is a case where the leftist yearning for vengeance was reified by a maniac — a not at all uncommon occurrence. Their rhetoric and posturing brought their fantasies and desires for vengeance to life before their eyes — though certainly not in a way that they would have approved of, seeing as there can be little opportunity to exploit it. Whatever else he was, Brinsley is in no way a revolutionary hero.

The left’s entanglement with vengeance is easily understood — it has nothing else. Their messiah has failed to lead them into Eden — his policies, both domestic and foreign, have failed catastrophically one after another, leaving him nothing to show for six years as president and a nightmare gauntlet for the remainder of his term. His response — and the response of the left as a whole — amounts to little more than disjointed and incoherent actions. In the past six years, every last hope and dream of the left has been exposed — there is nothing left.

So what does the left have but vengeance? It got them this far — it will have to maintain them through the rest of Obama’s tenure, and beyond.

So it follows that we will see more of it over the coming two years. It could be argued, in fact, that a number of Obama’s recent actions amount to revenge. His immigration “reform” was punishment for a nation not worthy of him. His “opening” to Cuba acts as a punishment of Hispanics for letting him down in the midterms.

“Revenge is a dish best eaten cold”; “When seeking vengeance, be sure to dig two graves”. All the adages concerning revenge are cautionary. It’s something to be avoided, to left to fate or karma or the hands of the Almighty. This is not something to be overlooked, if the condition of Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum are any indication.

But the left will overlook it. They despise ancient wisdom and they don’t have an Almighty. That being the case, we should prepare for a parade of Trayvons and “Jackies”, Lenas, and Ismaaiyls.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_lefts_base_motive_vengeance.html#ixzz3Np0NHS9K
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Aim High OOT

by Macker ( 26 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, Military, OOT, Ronald Reagan, U.S. Air Force at October 5th, 2014 - 10:00 pm

Here’s the new US Air Force commercial….

Now, name the individual or individuals who are NOT in this ad! After completion, partake of The Overnight Open Thread!

The Clinton Hit List

by coldwarrior ( 181 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, Politics at January 14th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Cross them at you’re peril!

Hillary and Bill Clinton compiled disloyalty ‘hit list’, new book claims

Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife ex-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attend the swearing-in ceremony of Terry McAuliffe as Virginia's governor in Richmond, Virginia in January.Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife ex-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attend the swearing-in ceremony of Terry McAuliffe as Virginia’s governor in Richmond, Virginia in January. Photo: Reuters

Washington: Hillary and Bill Clinton keep a detailed “hit list” of everyone who has crossed them during more than 20 years at the apex of American politics, a new book has claimed.

The list of so-called “sinners and saints” – including John Kerry, now secretary of state, and the late Ted Kennedy – was compiled on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in the dying days of Mrs Clinton’s failed bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

The alleged “cheat sheet” of betrayals – and there were many that year – ranked offenders on a scale from one to seven and was compiled by aides to give the Clintons an instant database of those who deserved political favour, and those who did not.

John KerryJohn Kerry: on the Clintons’ list. Photo: AFP. He SERVED in Vietnam.

“Almost six years later, most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favours that had been done for them then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons as if it all had happened just a few hours before,” wrote the authors of HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.


The Clintons have a reputation in Washington for long memories but the existence of a digital “favour book” raises questions about how Mrs Clinton, now 66, might conduct another run at the presidency in 2016. The book paints a picture of how wounding and dispiriting the 2008 campaign was for the Clintons as leading Democrats deserted them for Barack Obama, whose instant celebrity trumped years of hard networking and their own established pre-eminence as the most powerful double act in Democrat politics.

“The injuries and insults were endless, and each blow hurt more than the last, the cumulative effect of months and months of defections,” wrote the authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.

Among those rated as a “7” for most disloyal were Mr Kerry, who endorsed Mr Obama as a man who could “help restore our moral authority” and – even more devastating – Kennedy, who designated Mr Obama as the heir-apparent to his brother John F Kennedy.

Another huge betrayal for Mrs Clinton, as she ran to become the first female US president, was the decision of Claire McCaskill, a senior Missouri senator, to become the first significant female figure to endorse Mr Obama. Senator MacCaskill, who has endorsed Mrs Clinton for 2016, gave a television interview crediting Mr Clinton as a “great leader” before adding “I don’t want my daughter near him”, a remark that inspired rage among the Clintons and their aides.

Political strategists were divided over whether the portrayal of Mrs Clinton and her entourage as vindictive would damage her 2016 chances.

A Republican strategist who asked not to be named said the image was an obvious attack motif for Republicans in 2016.

“There’s a pretty solid understanding that you don’t mess with the Clintons because they are retributive, take a lot of stuff personally and will basically break your legs when you’re not looking,” he said.

Democrats were more sanguine, arguing that such political gossip was of interest to a only tiny class of political insiders and would have little impact on the campaign trail. “It may be titillating but it is not important,” a former staffer in the Clinton White House told London’s The Daily Telegraph. “But it is also typical of the way the Clinton operation has functioned in the post-presidency period. They have been vindictive and difficult.

“It’s the thing about the Clinton world that is the most dispiriting. It has always been baffling and troubling that they have operated with such a level of animus toward people that they should remain friends with.”

Clinton insiders told the authors it was wrong to paint Mrs Clinton as “Nixon in a pantsuit”, while another long-time adviser said it was “absurd” to suggest the Clintons’ decisions were ruled by a hit list, but did not deny its existence.

Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho

by Speranza ( 121 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, September 11 at January 3rd, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Can you imagine any time between 1937 and 1945 a Japanese flag flying over any site in America?  An Islamic flag in front of the World Trade Center in 1997 (four years after Muslims tried to bring down  the WTC down) presaged the Ramadan dinners, the “Islam is a religion of peace” pablum that is a part of the staple of American political culture. The sycophancy of the American presidency and the political elites regarding Islam is nauseating. I do recall Mohammad T. Mehdi from the 1970’s and 80’sm he was a loudmouthed rabble rouser.

by Daniel Greenfield

“A flag bearing a crescent and star flies from a flagpole in front of the World Trade Center, next to a Christmas tree and a menorah.”—New York Times, 1997

In 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi, the head of the Arab-American Committee and the National Council on Islamic Affairs, lobbied to have a crescent and star put up at the World Trade Center during the holiday season. His wish was granted, despite the fact that he had been an adviser to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman also known as the Blind Sheikh.

In the name of diversity and political correctness, an adviser to the religious leader behind the World Trade Center bombing, was allowed to plant an Islamic symbol of conquest in the very place that had been bombed.

Long before the Ground Zero Mosque was even a twinkle in the eye of a violent ex-waiter and aslumlord Imam, the World Trade Center allowed Mohammed T. Mehdi to bully it into flying the symbol of Islam.

By 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi had become an unambiguously ugly public figure. He had been fired by Mayor Dinkins in 1992 for anti-Semitic remarks. The year before he had proclaimed that, “Millions of Arabs believe Saddam stands tall having defied Western colonialism”.

In 1995, the US Attorney’s Office in New York had listed Mehdi as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sheikh Rahman. Mehdi had already published a book titled “Kennedy and Sirhan: Why?”, which contended that Robert Kennedy’s assassin had been acting in self-defense.

Because of Mehdi’s role in actively working on behalf of the Sheikh behind the wave of terrorism that included the original attack on the World Trade Center, turning down his request should have been a no-brainer. Instead in the winter of 1997 there was an Islamic star and crescent at the World Trade Center. And another one at the park in front of the White House.

Four years before the September 11 attacks; both targets had already been marked.

The previous year had marked the first annual Ramadan dinner at the State Department, integrating the Islamic celebration into the Clinton Administration’s schedule of events. Bill Clinton had not visited the World Trade Center after the bombing, but he did make time for Ramadan.

A month after 9/11, Bush went Clinton one better when he became the first president to host a Ramadan dinner at the White House. Many of the Muslim ambassadors at the event were representing countries that helped finance Al Qaeda. Little more than a month after September 11, the President of the United States sat down to break bread with the money men behind the attacks.

The Star and Crescent flying at the World Trade Center did not prevent it from being targeted in a second greater attack four years later. Nor did the Ramadan dinners keep the plane headed for the White House at bay. It took the self-sacrifice of its American passengers to do that. Instead every gesture of appeasement only seemed to make it worse.


No one who understood what had happened at the World Trade Center in 1993, would have permitted a banner associated with its attackers to be flown there. But while the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, let Mehdi have his way with the World Trade Center, other Muslims were working to carry out Sheikh Abdel-Rahman’s agenda for a war on America and the free world.


While the Star and Crescent was blowing in the cold December wind coming off the Hudson River, an even colder wind was blowing out of Hamburg, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. A year earlier Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had come up with the idea and presented it to Osama bin Laden. A year later the operation began to move forward.

While Secretary of State Albright was holding her Ramadan dinners, other Ramadan dinners were being held out of sight at which more substantive events were being discussed.

While the US was busy bombing Yugoslavian civilians in order to create a separatist Muslim state for KLA terrorists; Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were recruiting the first of the 9/11 hijackers. While the United States tried to appease Muslims, Muslims plotted to murder Americans.

In 1997, the New York Daily News wrote an upbeat story about Mehdi’s Star and Crescent, which envisioned Islam blending merrily into the holiday season.

New York may seem a little brighter this holiday season as the glowing Muslim crescent and star symbol nudges its way onto a seasonal landscape of Christmas trees, menorahs and Kwanzaa candles.

Watch out, ho, ho, ho-ing Santas you might get drowned out by cheery folks yelling, “Allahu akbar!”

Four years later, cheery folks yelling “Allahu Akbar” had filled downtown Manhattan with ashen snow and brightened it with the flames of the burning towers of the World Trade Center.

The 9/11 hijackers left behind notes which said among other things, “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers”.

If there were any Santas on those planes, they were certainly drowned out by the cries of “Allah Akbar”. And if that didn’t drown them out, having their throats being slit by the cheery folks with box cutters surely did.


“It would be like a gift for somebody,” a police officer said, who was spending his holiday searching through the debris. A gift for the infidels from Islam.

While Muslims were stuffing their faces in November of 2001, Americans were mourning their dead. While Abdul, Mohammed and Raisa were picking through their lamb stew, Americans were picking up the pieces of their loved ones. But it was they who were told to be sensitive to Muslim concerns.

From Pakistan, Musharraf urged the US to suspend bombing his Taliban allies during Ramadan. In the name of sensitivity. New York City schools were making arrangements for Muslim prayers out of “heightened sensitivity to Muslim concerns after the Sept. 11 attack”. Instead of Americans being on the receiving end of “heightened sensitivity”, the ideology that had conspired to murder them was.

On the 9th anniversary of 9/11, Islam had another gift for New Yorkers. Having bought up a building damaged in their own attack, they plotted to set up a grand mosque near Ground Zero. Another gift to New Yorkers from the religion that kept on giving. Another Crescent and Star.

The same people who did not learn the lesson in 1997, and allowed the Crescent and Star to fly at the World Trade Center, were eager to let the Ground Zero Mosque go forward in the name of tolerance. But despite the Crescent and Star, appeasement proved to be no defense.

3,000 died on 9/11 because American leaders preferred to appease, rather than confront. And we are still busy appeasing, like never before.

Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho.

Read the rest – Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho


Concerning Jane Fonda and Pope Francis

by Speranza ( 168 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton at December 20th, 2013 - 1:00 pm

Somehow I’ll bet that the Obama’s are not exactly the most generous charity givers out there.

by Bret Stepens

In the same week that Pope Francis was named Time’s Person of the Year, word arrived of the charitable contributions made by the Jane Fonda Foundation. Grand total for the years 2007 to 2011: zero dollars. The last time Ms. Fonda’s Foundation made a charitable gift, reports the Smoking Gun website, was in 2006, to the tune of $1,000.

The Foundation itself has $800,000 in assets. Ms. Fonda’s representatives insist she’s made larger gifts, particularly through her family foundation, which in 2011 made about $350,000 in contributions from $7.2 million in net assets. But even that’s not quite 5%, the legal minimum required to remain a private foundation.

Ms. Fonda isn’t exactly the world’s first cheapskate limousine liberal: Think of Bill Clinton claiming a tax deduction for donating his underwear, or the $353 Al Gore gave to charity in 1997. But the contrast between Francis and Fonda is worth pondering as liberals cheer—and conservatives try, uneasily, to explain or ignore—the pope’s recent denunciation of economic concepts championed by this newspaper.

Here is what the pope wrote in his 50,000-word apostolic exhortation, published last month:


Two thoughts. First, I’m glad the only economics ministry the pope runs is the Vatican’s. The trickle-down theories he simplistically denounces have done more to bring people out of poverty than any government program or charitable institution in history, including the Church.

Second, I don’t begrudge Francis his views. After a life of tending to the poor in the villas miserias of Buenos Aires, he’s earned them. The same can’t be said for Ms. Fonda, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Gore—or, for that matter, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren and other high priests of liberal cant and leftist hypocrisy.


Has Sen. Warren ever been offered a meal in a slum she feared would make her sick, but eaten it in simple gratitude for the gesture? Just wondering.

Francis also electrifies because he seems to understand that it is not enough to account for the Church’s moral failings by citing St. Paul’s line about holding “this treasure in jars of clay.” Catholic ministers can be sinners like the rest of us, but the Church’s jars of clay need not be stuffed with a German bishop’s $20,000 bath tub, or by a Vatican Bank that is a model for the corruption Francis denounces in his exhortation, or by cardinals who denounce the “grotesque subversion” of homosexuality right until the moment they own up to making passes at priests and seminarians.

In other words, he knows that personal example matters, both in its own right and especially when it comes to persuasion. Can the same be said of Harry Reid exempting members of his staff from ObamaCare coverage? Or Al Gore living in a mansion that in 2007 consumed 12 times more electricity than the average neighborhood home and later selling Current TV to the government of Qatar? Or Sen. Warren earning hundreds of thousands of dollars by defending Travelers Insurance and other corporate giants in class-action suits? Or columnists who declaim against the dangers of income and social inequality while enjoying tenured jobs at Ivy League schools?

Yes, we know that Al bought indulgences—aka carbon offsets—for his Nashville manse, and that Qatar, with the world’s highest per capita carbon footprint, just happened to be the right buyer for his failing channel. We also know that Harry just “followed the law” that he helped craft and nobody else can understand, and the former Cherokee Indian was just doing what lawyers do, and the former Enron adviser never apologizes for anything.  […….]

The world will always have its share of hypocrites in high places, and Lord knows conservatives aren’t exempt. Still, liberals wondering what went wrong for them politically this season should look beyond the technical and managerial incompetence and the flaws in the policy design. The people who represent liberalism today are an unattractive bunch. They need their own Francis, leading their own moral renewal. Barack Obama isn’t it.

Read the rest – Of Jane Fonda and Pope Francis

The Process Is The Punishment

by Flyovercountry ( 134 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, Marxism, Progressives at November 22nd, 2013 - 12:00 pm

Remembering back to the 1996 Democrat National Convention, Hillary Clinton, in an impassioned plea to defend the honor of her husband, a man with such obvious character and class, that when he had the 19 year old intern alone in his office, he penetrated her only with the tip of his expensive cigar and not with any actual part of his own anatomy. Hillary, in that shrill tone that only she and the mythical creature known as a banshee can achieve, alluded to something she labeled as, “The Mean Republican Attack Machine.” She also told tales of the, “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.” Being a member in good standing on the political right myself, I must say that I’ve not received my invitation to the secret meetings of the conspirators yet, and gentle persons, I would love to participate.

Against that backdrop, and to place context on this continuing labeling of all things right of center as either evil, stupid, senile, or crazy, remember what happened to Sarah Palin after the 2008 Presidential Election. Four people, none of whom had ever lived in Alaska prior to 2008, nor had even visited Alaska, moved in, and in January of 2009, filed so many ethics complaints against Governor Palin that she was forced to resign. Defending herself and her family against the sheer number of charges and complaints became a full time job in itself. when the dust settled of course, not one allegation was found to have had any basis in reality, and the four operatives of the Democrat Party promptly ended their residence in Alaska.

There are two things to note here. First, if Sarah Palin were really an idiot, as the game of categorize the Republican had labeled her, why the need to destroy her in this fashion? I should think the Democrats would have welcomed her with open arms as an adversary. Claire McCaskill as you’ll recall, actually donated large amounts of money and resources to the campaign of one Todd Aiken during his primary run for the Missouri Senate Seat in 2012. Secondly, the injury was not to Governor Palin alone. The injury also occurred to the people of Alaska who had their legitimate choice for their Governor vetoed by the Democrat Party. She was chased from her office because she dared to stand up and oppose their agenda. The rest of the nation also suffered an injury when this tactic proved successful, as it has served to encourage repeat of this behavior.

From the Wall Street Journal Article linked to above:

Americans learned in the IRS political targeting scandal that government enforcement power can be used to stifle political speech. Something similar may be unfolding in Wisconsin, where a special prosecutor is targeting conservative groups that participated in the battle over Governor Scott Walker’s union reforms.

In recent weeks, special prosecutor Francis Schmitz has hit dozens of conservative groups with subpoenas demanding documents related to the 2011 and 2012 campaigns to recall Governor Walker and state legislative leaders.

Copies of two subpoenas we’ve seen demand “all memoranda, email . . . correspondence, and communications” both internally and between the subpoena target and some 29 conservative groups, including Wisconsin and national nonprofits, political vendors and party committees. The groups include the League of American Voters, Wisconsin Family Action, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Americans for Prosperity—Wisconsin, American Crossroads, the Republican Governors Association, Friends of Scott Walker and the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

One subpoena also demands “all records of income received, including fundraising information and the identity of persons contributing to the corporation.” In other words, tell us who your donors are.


The kitchen-sink subpoenas deserve skepticism considering their subject and targets. The disclosure of conservative political donors has become a preoccupation of the political left across the country. In the heat of the fight over Governor Walker’s reforms, unions urged boycotts of Walker contributors and DemocraticUnderground.com published a list of Walker donors for boycotting.

The subpoena demand for the names of donors to nonprofit groups that aren’t legally required to disclose them is especially troubling. Readers may recall that the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent the tax-exempt applications of several conservative groups to the ProPublica news website in 2012.

The subpoenas don’t spell out a specific allegation, but the demands suggest the government may be pursuing a theory of illegal campaign coordination by independent groups during the recall elections. If prosecutors are pursuing a theory that independent conservative groups coordinated with candidate campaigns during the recall, their goal may be to transform the independent expenditures into candidate committees after the fact, requiring revision of campaign-finance disclosures and possible criminal charges.


Perhaps the probe will turn up some nefarious activity that warrants this subpoena monsoon and home raids. But in the meantime the effect is to limit political speech by intimidating these groups from participating in the 2014 campaign. Stifling allies of Mr. Walker would be an enormous in-kind contribution to Democrats. Even if no charges are filed, the subpoenas will have served as a form of speech suppression.

Mr. O’Keefe told us that the flurry of subpoenas “froze my communications and frightened many allies and vendors of the pro-taxpayer political movement in Wisconsin and across the country.” Even if no one is ever convicted of a crime, he says, “the process is the punishment.”

Evil does not begin to describe what is happening in Wisconsin. If you want to discuss voter suppression, here’s your chance. The voters in Wisconsin twice elected their current leadership within the last 3 years. This is the second time that the Democrats have gone after Scott Walker with this very tactic, and yet, the will of the Wisconsin electorate means nothing to them. Their vote in Wisconsin is worthy of nothing more than being suppressed. The unmitigated gall of those people, voting for someone other than the chosen Marxist apparatchiks selected to be their leaders by party central.

For what ever reason, they are fighting harder and more vigorously in Wisconsin than anywhere else. These are the lengths that they are willing to go to in order to seize power, and God help us all if they are successful in seizing any more than what they currently have. Those of us on the right have a goal that is to convince people that we are right, and to win that battle in the arena of ideas. The goal of the political left is to destroy any and all competing view points and to do away with any semblance of an opposition party. Either we figure out a way to unite and save our country, and do this quickly, or our nation will have been fundamentally transformed into something that no longer has any chance of resembling the bastion of free enterprise and self determination that we have all known and wish to see again.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Propaganda tactics: It’s all about timing.

by Guest Post ( 71 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, Media, Progressives at October 31st, 2013 - 4:00 pm

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey

Many people believe that Bill Clinton created and perfected the art of the Friday News Dump. For those who are unaware of what the Friday News Dump is, it’s a political tactic where important information is released to the public late Friday afternoon after the regular news cycle has concluded. It assures that whatever important news is being dumped gets ignored because of the well documented tendency of American’s to quit paying attention over the weekend.

The truth is, it was not Bill Clinton who invented the Friday News dump, nor did he perfect it. The trend for American’s to quit paying attention to the news over the weekend was first noticed and documented by the Nielsen Ratings Agency way back in the 1950′s. Arthur Nielsen was a statistician and market analyst who created a statistical model of American radio listening habits in the 1920′s for a number of major advertising agencies. The statistical model he created was used to determine when the best time for various product placement ads was.

As a corollary, his statistical model also told when the worst possible time for ad placement was. This negative corollary found it’s first true application during the mid to late 1950′s when the major News outlets had to release bad news regarding the Korean War. As unpopular as the Korean War was back in the late 50′s, America had not yet become a anti-War nation. The anti-war protest environment that plagued the Vietnam War was still a decade off. Every Presidential administration from Dwight D Eisenhower forward has taken advantage of the statistical model created by Arthur Nielsen.

While Bill Clinton did not create or perfect the Friday News Dump, he was without a doubt the First American President to have an ally in the Mainstream Media whom he could count on to ignore important news events that his administration wanted ignored. While previous Presidents such as John F Kennedy had enjoyed an unusually cooperative mainstream media, they were still subject to actual real investigative journalism. Which meant that if they dumped something into the Friday News Dump void, there was always a very real chance that some hot shot reporter trying to make a name for himself would dig it out and run with it Monday morning.

As much cooperation as Bill Clinton received from the Mainstream Media in this particular endeavor, it was literately nothing at all compared to the criminal conspiracy with which the media has cooperated with the Obama administration in turning the Friday News Dump into a gigantic information Black Hole.

One of the interesting things about properly constructed statistical models is, that the more information they contain, the more the statistical model tells you. While Nielsens original model was designed to tell advertising agencies when the best time for product placement was, the constant accumulation of data also began painting another picture. It also began telling about market saturation and declining return periods. In other words, it told the advertising agencies when a product advertising campaign had over saturated the market and people began to ignore the advertising.

Eventually it became possible to model saturation and over saturation points. Place this statistical model information in the hands of individuals with a political agenda and suddenly you have one of the most powerful propaganda advancement tools ever created. The ability to time the release of critical information and manage how the general public reacts to it.

Video: Two commandos made it to Benghazi

The official line from the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon about the US response to the attack on our consulate in Benghazi has been that we didn’t have time to send in troops to fight the terrorists that were killing Americans. A new report from Washington Times reporter Rowan Scarborough undermines that argument, and once again raises the question about the lack of response. Two American commandos have received medals for fighting in Benghazi after volunteering to accompany five security contractors from Tripoli, and Scarborough wonders why the US didn’t mobilize other forces at the same time:

This is what is and has been going on with Benghazi and Operation Fast and Furious. A combination of slow dribbling out of information, then flurries of stories. Build the story up to it’s market saturation point then suddenly push it over the saturation point with the result that the general public ignores the story because they have heard to much saying to little.

Now, combine this strategy with ability to calculate the duration of a stories life expectancy and you have the ability to calculate when to release critically important information in such a way that the general public is exhausted by the story before that story can have serious political ramifications. Break a scandal 18 months before a election takes place, reach over-saturation 6 months before the election and the story will have no significant impact on that election cycle.

Obama on insurance cancellations: “Just shop around in the new marketplace, that’s what it’s for”

Fear not, you millions of Americans now receiving insurance policy cancellation notices in the mail: Your anger and bewilderment has not fallen upon deaf ears. In his speech in Boston this afternoon, President Obama munificently took the time to explain to any such Americans how it was not, in fact, his own now infamous promise that “If you like your plan, you can keep it” that misled people, because hey, insurance companies are still offering plans you can buy in their place! They might be more expensive, sure, but the good news is that they will no longer be “substandard.” According to The One, that is.

Video: White House intimidating insurers into staying quiet on the ObamaCare debacle?
It could be worse, as Audrey Hudson can tell you. All these insurers are getting are phone calls, not raids by the Maryland State Police seizing their notes on government malfeasance. CNN’s Anderson Cooper reports that the insurers want to get the real story out about why millions of people will have their policies cancelled, and how they tried to warn HHS of this unnecessary outcome. For now, they’re outsourcing the job to Robert Laszewski (via Daniel Halper):

The 2014 midterm elections are coming up and the strategy being employed by the Mainstream Media in concert with the Obama Administration is in full swing. Begin the slow dribbling of damaging information on Obamacare and Benghazi, build it up to it’s market over-saturation crescendo and ensure that it does as little damage politically to the Democrats as possible. Repeat the process again just before the 2016 presidential election and ensure that Hillary Clinton is immunized from any political fallout from either Obamacare or Benghazi. Scandals which if Hillary Clinton were a Republican would absolutely guarantee that she would never even make it out of the Presidential Primaries.

Yes, sorry to break it to you, but this is exactly how you are being manipulated.

(Cross Posted@ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

Edit: (updated with links added)

The Psychology Behind Leftist Lies

by Mars ( 74 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogmocracy, Communism, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Education, Eric Holder, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, Hipsters, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Progressives, Socialism at October 31st, 2013 - 12:00 pm

The Psychology Behind Leftist Lies

Dr. Gary R. Casselman

Liberals comprise only about 20 percent of the voting public. So, how has the left been so successful in swaying the majority of voters to believe what they feed them, when most often what the left says is not supported by the facts and what they do actually does harm to their voting constituents?

In mine and Tim Daughtry‘s recent book, Waking the Sleeping Giant: How Mainstream Americans Can Beat Liberals at Their Own Game, we discuss the issue of the misinformed and the uninformed voter typically voting for Democrats. Rush Limbaugh often refers to this voting segment as the “low information” voter. It is from this set of voters that the left is able to draw the additional 30 – 35 percent of the votes that they need to win elections, taking our country down the path of socialism.

How do they do this?

They lie.

The uninformed voter will not take the time to learn the facts.

For example, Democrats have convinced the nation that people are poor because they have been treated unfairly and are victims of greedy capitalists. To address this purported social injustice, President Obama’s approach is to “re-distribute” the nation’s wealth. President Johnson pushed through “The War on Poverty” as part of his “Great Society” platform to rectify, supposedly, the “social injustice” committed by those “evil capitalists.”

The fact is that poverty levels in the United States since The War on Poverty was implemented are unchanged in 50 years – despite the re-distribution of literally trillions of dollars. Since President Obama’s first inauguration, poor people are notably poorer now than when he took office in 2009, only five years ago!

Household median income, since President Obama took office, is down $3,000. Since 2009 the poverty rate has risen from 14.3 percent to nearly 17 percent in 2013. Additionally, 20 percent of the nation’s children live in poverty.

And the blunt force to the face of Obamacare hasn’t even hit yet. As has been said for years: “If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it is free!”

Example after example of this could be given, but the point is made. Democrats continue to win over public opinion despite the facts. People largely blame the Republicans for things like government shutdowns, as has been the case throughout recent history, despite the facts to the contrary.

The left must have a cadre of psychologists advising them. Let’s look at the deeper dynamics of how liberals are so effective at influencing the misinformed and the uninformed. To do this, we must look to psychology – the underpinning of absolutely everything that happens in humankind.

The dirty little secret is that the left recognizes, at least de facto, if not deliberately, that the human mind is both logical (the left hemisphere of the neo cortex) and emotional (the limbic system). We are all pretty familiar with the linear logic of the left hemisphere of the human brain, but most of us are unfamiliar with the most powerful part of the brain – the limbic system.
The Psychology Behind Leftist Lies

It is the limbic system that has been the foundation of our survival as a species since time began. It is the center of the survival emotions, most powerfully of which are fear and anger: the flight and fight emotions.

These powerful survival emotions get triggered whenever the brain senses a threat to its survival, setting up a series of responses and reactions in the brain and in the body to prepare to run away from the threat, or fight it if escape is impossible.

The left uses this knowledge about how our brains work to garner massive support for their big government policy by painting a picture of Republicans as a threat.

The lies from the left about Republicans are designed to be threatening (e.g.., the Republicans won’t negotiate with us Democrats on the debt ceiling, threatening the country with default and catastrophic economic collapse). This in turn triggers the limbic system.

The misinformed believe it because it is consistent with the lies they have always been told and already believe. The continuous stream of lies from the left make them feel even more threatened and even angrier.

After all, in their mind, if the president is saying this, it must be true? Right?

Currently, the left is blaming Republicans for the government shutdown, painting Republicans as uncaring, greedy, hateful and corrupt. According to Democrats, Republicans don’t care about children, veterans, seniors, African Americans and the poor.

They spew forth lie after lie about how Republicans want to push granny off the cliff, cut social security, school lunches, veteran’s benefits, welfare, etc., indeed wanting to keep the disenfranchised, well, disenfranchised.

One cannot listen to the news for more than a minute to see this reflected in the thinking of Republican politicians.

On Oct. 7, 2013 on the Kelly File on Fox News, Senator Ted Cruz said that the Veteran’s Administration was closed in the recent government shut down even though the House Republicans had put forth a bill to the senate to fund the agency. But, he goes on to say, Senator Harry Reid won’t bring the bill to the floor.

Senator Cruz’s analysis: “This just doesn’t make any sense!”

Logically, he is right, it makes no sense.

But from a psychological, limbic perspective, it makes perfect sense.

By stopping the funding to the VA, Senator Reid and his fellow liberals can blame the Republicans for stopping the funding, and anger the voting public against Senator Cruz and the Republicans.

The uninformed voter will not take the time to learn the facts. They will listen to a sound byte from Senator Reid, which will be blasted all over the mainstream media, and that will define their understanding of the situation.

Score one for the limbic system.

Historically, polls will show that the voting public blame the Republicans for these things when that’s not entirely true. But because the left has created a massive population of misinformed and uninformed voters (who are often angry, aggressive and attacking) these delusions prevail.

If Republicans don’t wise up to the tactics and manipulations of the left, and continue to appeal exclusively to reason, as Senator Cruz did, it soon will be too late. If we aren’t at the tipping point, can it be anything more than just around the corner?


Here’s a little psych insight into the mind of the left put up by The Blaze.

It’s hard for me to put it much better. But, it might go a way to explain this question I asked on a thread recently.

65 | October 30, 2013 10:49 pm

There’s something going on here that we don’t understand.

Going off past performance of the liberals and assuming their plan is what we think it is, at this point they should have been jumping ship on Obamacare and distancing themselves for the election next year. Even if they all want single payer, the logical thing is to distance themselves and then after the election reposition in order to start the next phase.

This is not happening. Instead they are circling the wagons and repeating the same lies Obama is. All evidence coming out of the press says that the public is turning against them in waves, yet they still continue to parrot the party lie.

The only signs of any breakage in the liberals is Landrieux pushing for her thing, and the press starting to report things that are negative about the Pharaoh.

I’m not quite sure what the game is here, but I have a bad feeling it’s going to bite us all square in the ass.
– See more at: http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2013/10/30/emp-power-industry-is-literally-playing-games-instead-of-taking-action-to-harden-infrastructure/#comment-1274173

There is something evil going on here.

File this under: You have to be a Clinton to be this big of a hypocrite.

by Guest Post ( 91 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton, Corruption, Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, Marxism, Progressives at July 30th, 2013 - 6:00 pm

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey


Everyone still drawing breath with two functional braincells knows that Bill and Hillary Clinton are totally amoral political opportunist scumbags. From Bill’s “What the definition of “Is is”” to Hillary’s “At this point what difference does it make” their contemptuous disregard for ethics and morality is the stuff legends are made out of.

Just when you think that a President and his wife who was once impeached for having extra marital sexual affairs in the Oval Office couldn’t possibly be any more hypocritical they prove that they in fact can.

Bad news: Clintons not happy with being compared to Anthony Weiner and Huma

I can’t believe anyone, especially people as politically savvy as Billary, think a guy like Weiner who’ll be a distant memory come 2016 poses any serious problem for the Clinton machine. The annoyance here likely derives from the stature gap between the two couples, the way the royal family might be annoyed to be called “Britain’s Kardashians.” As Dave Weigel said last week, the Weiners are to the Clintons as “Sharknado” is to “Jaws”: Fun in their own pathetically tawdry way, but really just a hollow, farcical imitation.

“The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did,’’ said a top state Democrat.

Weiner and his campaign aides have explicitly referred to the Clintons as they privately seek to convince skeptical Democrats that voters can back Weiner despite his online sexual antics — just as they supported then-President Bill Clinton in the face of repeated allegations of marital betrayals.

“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”…

Meanwhile, at least one prominent Hillary Rodham Clinton political operative was described as close to “going public’’ with a sharp criticism of Weiner — in order to send the message that the Clintons, fearing longtime damage to Hillary, want him out of the mayor’s race.

Hey Bill, Hillary… Shut the fuck up…

That’s right, shut the fuck up, you are exactly the same as Anthony and Huma. No difference what so ever. You are moral and ethical reprobates.

Hell, Bill, you are worse than Anthony Weiner, you had sex with an intern in the Oval office, Anthony only sent highly inappropriate pictures to women he was flirting with on twitter. Hillary, not only are you exactly the same as Huma, you actually advised Huma on how to deal with and survive her husbands scandal.

The fact that Bill was President of the United States of America instead of a mere Senator does not elevate Bill to some grander station, it only proves that he is a bigger scumbag.

(Cross Posted@ The Wilderness of Mirrors)